Pooja Dehy Foods Pvt. Ltd VS Union Of India

In a recent legal proceeding, Mr. Hiren Trivedi, representing the petitioners, argued vigorously against the orders issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, Rajkot, and the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-II, Bhavnagar. His primary contention was centered on the refusal of refund of CGST to the petitioners. Mr. Trivedi’s submissions underscored that the petitioners had rightfully sought redressal through their petitions, seeking the overturning of these adverse decisions.

On the other side, Mr. Dhaval Vyas, appearing for the respondents, presented counterarguments aimed at justifying the decisions made by the authorities. His defense emphasized compliance with statutory provisions and the correctness of the orders issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner.

Central to the petitions were the prayers put forth by the petitioners, which included the setting aside of the orders denying CGST refunds and the subsequent sanctioning of the refund amounts owed to them. This crucial aspect formed the core of the legal dispute, with both advocates meticulously presenting their respective cases before the court.

The proceedings thus highlighted a detailed legal debate over the interpretation of GST laws and procedural aspects governing refunds, reflecting the complexity and significance of the issues at hand.

Certainly! Here’s a summary of the arguments presented by Mr. Hiren Trivedi, advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Dhaval Vyas, advocate for the respondents, in the petitions concerning the refusal of CGST refund:

Mr. Hiren Trivedi, representing the petitioners, argued before the court seeking to set aside the orders issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, Rajkot, and the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-II, Bhavnagar. These orders had denied the petitioners’ claims for CGST refund. The petitioners emphasized their entitlement to the refund amounting to Rs. 29,42,618/-, which was applied for on April 30, 2021, through GST RFD-01A.

Furthermore, Mr. Trivedi requested the court to direct the respondent authorities to:

1. Immediately sanction the refund amount of Rs. 29,42,618/- as per their application.

2. Grant interest at 9% per annum to the petitioners from the date of filing the refund application until the actual payment date.

On the other hand, Mr. Dhaval Vyas, representing the respondents, likely countered these arguments by defending the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-II, Bhavnagar. His arguments may have focused on justifying the reasons for the denial of the refund claim, possibly citing procedural or substantive grounds.

In essence, the main contention in these petitions revolves around the rightful entitlement of the petitioners to receive the CGST refund, the validity of the orders denying the refund, and the application of interest on the delayed refund amount as claimed by the petitioners.

refund cannot be denied on the ground of delay in filing. The matter was argued before the court by Mr. Hiren Trivedi, the learned advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Dhaval Vyas, the learned advocate representing the respondents.

Mr. Hiren Trivedi, appearing for the petitioners, asserted that the impugned orders by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assistant Commissioner denied the petitioners’ rightful claim for refund of CGST. He argued that the delay in filing the refund applications, which was the basis for rejection by the authorities, should not be a ground for denial in light of Notification No. 13/2022 issued on 5th July 2022. This notification, issued under section 168A of the CGST Act, effectively waived the time limit for filing refund applications during the specified period, thereby validating the petitioners’ claims.

The prayers in the petitions filed under Special Civil Application No. 90 of 2022 included:

1. Setting aside the orders dated 27th October 2021 (Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, Rajkot) and 9th June 2021 (Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-II, Bhavnagar).

2. Directing the respondent authorities to sanction the refund of Rs. 29,42,618/- filed vide application dated 30th April 2021.

3. Directing the respondent authorities to pay interest at 9% to the petitioners from the date of filing the refund application till the date of actual payment.

Mr. Trivedi argued that the refusal to grant the refund solely based on the delay in filing was unjustified and contrary to the law as amended by the aforementioned notification. He emphasized that the petitioners had fulfilled all other conditions for refund entitlement under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, and thus, the denial based on procedural grounds was erroneous.

On the other hand, Mr. Dhaval Vyas, representing the respondents, countered by arguing that despite the notification, there were other substantive issues regarding the eligibility of the refund claim that needed consideration. He highlighted procedural lapses and technicalities that were not addressed adequately by the petitioners in their applications.

In conclusion, both advocates presented their arguments comprehensively, focusing on the impact of the notification on the petitioners’ refund claims. The court will now consider these arguments before rendering a decision on the matter.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: